In a crushing defeat for the clone Mac maker, Psystar was on the losing end of a crucial court decision in the company's ongoing legal battle with Apple.

Judge William Alsup ruled this week in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the Florida corporation. In addition, Psystar was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware.

"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Alsup also denied Psystar's own motion for summary judgment, in which the company attempted to prove that Apple engaged in copyright misuse. The judge ruled that Apple's End User License Agreement only attempts to control use of Apple's own software, which is within its rights.

The summary judgment does not mean that the trial is concluded, however. A number of issues remain to be resolved. Apple has alleged that Psystar has engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among other activities.

The ruling was issued Nov. 13 in a San Francisco court. Another hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14, and trial between the two companies is due to start in January 2010.

The decision came after both companies requested summary judgments, which turned into a positive for Apple and a significant defeat for Psystar.

It's just the latest of many setbacks for Psystar as it has attempted to defend itself from Apple's suit. In September, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.

The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- in October began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.

"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge William Alsup struck what may be a death blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.

"Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says. It is just the latest in a long string of ruling upholding EULAs, sometimes called shrinkwrap or click-wrap licenses," Wildstrom reports. "The judge rejected out of hand Psystar's claims that it made legal use of Apple's trademarks and that Apple has misued it copyrights."

Wildstrom reports, "A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14. The order does not cover several other claims by Apple, including breach of contract and trademark infringement, but the ruling suggest that Apple would be heavily favored to win should the remaining case ever come to trial. There is also similar litigation pending in Florida, where Psystar is based."

---------------------

That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."

A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.

I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.

"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge William Alsup struck what may be a death blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.

"Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says. It is just the latest in a long string of ruling upholding EULAs, sometimes called shrinkwrap or click-wrap licenses," Wildstrom reports. "The judge rejected out of hand Psystar's claims that it made legal use of Apple's trademarks and that Apple has misued it copyrights."

Wildstrom reports, "A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14. The order does not cover several other claims by Apple, including breach of contract and trademark infringement, but the ruling suggest that Apple would be heavily favored to win should the remaining case ever come to trial. There is also similar litigation pending in Florida, where Psystar is based."

---------------------

That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."

A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.

I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.

All I can say is:

F*** YOU, stupid Psystar pirates. And of course, a big F*** YOU to all you morons who bought Psystar products against Apple's continued investments in R&D and innovation...it's an exemplary judgement to block all such hackers from freeriding on someone else's efforts...now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!

now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!

Important point:

It is just the latest in a long string of rulings upholding EULAs

EULAs are there for a reason. They aren't there for fun and games. The manufacturer kinda takes them seriously, and when it comes down to legality (nothwithstanding indiivduals who get away with violating them) the courts do as well.

"Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?

What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?

What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.

They're essentially shysters outside of the matters at issue as well, which couldn't have helped their cause.

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.

In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)

Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?

For there to be a trial, there has to be a material issue of fact in dispute. Trials are not about making determinations based on already known fact. They are about deciding the facts. If the facts are reasonably determined before a trail, it is a Judge's job to determine how the law applies to the facts without there being a trial upon a Party's request. In this case, Apple and Psystar had to turn over to each other all kinds of information under rules of Discovery in preparation for trial.

So, when a party is filing a Motion for Summary Judgement it is saying to the Court that the relevant facts are known (e.g. because of Discovery) and accordingly there is no need for a trial on these issues. If the Court agrees with the moving party that the relevant facts are known, the Court can make a decision as to liability on those issues without there being a trial. The purpose of filing a Motion for Summary Judgement is for a party to avoid an unnecessary and expensive trial.

Successful Summary Judgement motions are rare. This ruling is huge for Apple. The judge has essentially ruled that Psystar is liable for copyright infringement. There still may be a trial, but it will be for more minor complaints from Apple, not Apple's copyright complaints. Further, if Psystar is in business, there still may be a trial on Psystar's complaint against Apple as well. The Court did not rule in favor of Psystar's Motion for Summary Judgement, so it has to have a trail to prove it's case there.

Interestingly enough Psystar will likely be liable relatively soon to Apple for millions of dollars. This ruling only applies to Leopard though, and not Snow Leopard because the Court wouldn't combine the two issues (silly really). So, technically if Apple can't get an injunction against Psystar for Snow Leopard, Psystar can keep selling it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noirdesir

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

Exactly right. There still may be a trial, but it will not be over Apple's chief complaints of copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA. Apple filed some other minor complaints as well. For instance, violation of contract. If Apple wants to pursue those complaints, it will have to take the matter to trial. Further, since Psystar lost it's Motion for Summary Judgement, it will have to take it's complaints to trial as well.

I suspect both Apple and Psystar will drop it's remaining Complaints unless there really are deep pockets funding this operation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noirdesir

Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?

Over at MacObserver "Bosco" is attempting to defend Psystar but is being creamed by seemingly far more knowledgeable opponents.

I'm no lawyer, but I have never understood Psystar's case. It just seems so specious.

If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.

That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.

Congratulations Apple! You paid for Mac OS X development, therefore you should get to decide who can license it (which computers), and should not have to permit someone else to use your technology to run on their PCs.

That's total nonsense. It's obnoxious when people put politics into tech forums, so to clarify...

US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.

Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.

In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.

But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?

That's total nonsense. It's obnoxious when people put politics into tech forums, so to clarify...

US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.

Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes, weren't here on a visitor visa, and picked up abroad after committing heinous crimes or working for such an organization, then Guantanamo would be the place. People in other countries don't benefit from the Constitution, unless there is some partisan political effort here to try and 1up a differing political party. Not sure why, it's not like foreigners can vote and help in elections? However, then it seems to be ok bending or breaking rules, but only in obvious cases of political gain, or if you don't like somebody, or you have - at maximum- vague accusations of a conspiracy.

In my mind it seems pretty clear the place for Psystar is the US Federal Court System. I'm not a lawyer (was inoculated as a child), but I think if it were possible to send Psystar to Guantanamo, then Pirate Bay could be tried here rather than in the Kingdom of Sweden.

But hey, I don't make the rules, I just read 'em. Not sure why this is so confusing to people?

Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.

A summary judgement is asked for if one believes one's position is so obviously and manifestly correct (or the other side's position is so obviously a fantasy), that the trial itself would be a travesty and waste everyone's time. The judge can agree or not.

In this case Psystar basically said that Apple was misusing copyright when it obviously and clearly was not, so the judge agreed and now they aren't able to even argue that if the trial continues.

This happens all the time. Like if OJ argued that aliens killed his wife and was prepared to make some big defence based on that, the other team could argue for a summary judgement that such a defence was just a big waste of time because, you know, aliens are a fantasy. It's a way of clearing out all the real BS before the arguments begin.

Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).

If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.

That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.

They can't. Firstly, it's a Constitutional issue that's guaranteed in the Constitution.

Secondly, it's been tried many times, and has failed because of the first reason.

The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment.

Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to get a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).

That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.

Quote:

\t2.\tCONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. 11\tApple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.” See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). \tPsystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.

If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.

That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.

That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.

Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.

I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.

That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.

Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.

I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.

In addition, computer programs are included within the copyright laws.

Apple will now sue for damages (lost revenue, etc.. plus punitive) thus driving Psystar to bankruptcy and shutter of doors. The main reason I like this is because if any manufacturer can do this it will severely hurt Apple and thus the millions of consumers that are served by a strong and robust Apple. Also, if Psystar wins then mobile OSX would be used on other phones.

That's still illegal. And if you read the complete judgement, you would see that the judge already said they were guilty of "contributorily infringement", which also covers what you just said they should have done.

On the one hand, that would tend to be supported by the Grokster case cited, which says even third parties could be found guilty. Curiously, though, the summary judgment specifically says, "Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public." So what would happen to that judgment if Psystar wasn't selling those unauthorized copies?

It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.

With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.

Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.

My question is: does Apple have a legal remedy available to it to 'force' disclosure of the financial backers of Psystar? Could this occur if Apple sues for damages, and thus can find the deep pockets via discovery in that legal process?